Vista - Why do people who are happy with XP upgrade to Vista?

I have Vista and am almost completely happy running the 64 bit version of it
on this computer here. But there's no way in a million years that I would
have taken up Vista if I hadn't been building a new machine. On my last
machine, I kept going with Windows 98 right up until updates and support
were stopped before moving to XP. If I had been simply upgrading parts of
that, for sure it would still be running XP. It was working and it didn't
seem to me that I would be able to do more with XP than I could with 98,
certainly nothing that was worth the extra license fee. I think that must
be even more true with Vista and XP, on both counts. Given I was about to
pay for another OS license for a brand new machine, I thought I may as well
have the new one; I did consider buying another XP license with an upgrade
coupon inside, but in the end got an almost give-away deal on Vista.

I really find it odd that most people posting in this group appear to be
people who are changing OS on existing machines with little or no change in
hardware.

Neil

Because they can :-)

All kidding aside, I was using XP for my development work and when Vista
came out, I installed it on a test machine. When I got all the bugs out,
printer drivers working, programs tested, I finally moved over to Vista and
got rid of XP. I have a new machine, dual core, 4GB memory, multiple hard
drives, updated Video card, so I just decided to go for it.


"Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eVN5rh5rHHA.2240@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I have Vista and am almost completely happy running the 64 bit version of
>it on this computer here. But there's no way in a million years that I
>would have taken up Vista if I hadn't been building a new machine. On my
>last machine, I kept going with Windows 98 right up until updates and
>support were stopped before moving to XP. If I had been simply upgrading
>parts of that, for sure it would still be running XP. It was working and
>it didn't seem to me that I would be able to do more with XP than I could
>with 98, certainly nothing that was worth the extra license fee. I think
>that must be even more true with Vista and XP, on both counts. Given I was
>about to pay for another OS license for a brand new machine, I thought I
>may as well have the new one; I did consider buying another XP license with
>an upgrade coupon inside, but in the end got an almost give-away deal on
>Vista.
>
> I really find it odd that most people posting in this group appear to be
> people who are changing OS on existing machines with little or no change
> in hardware.
>
> Neil

They don't understand the utility curve?

"Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eVN5rh5rHHA.2240@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I have Vista and am almost completely happy running the 64 bit version of
>it on this computer here. But there's no way in a million years that I
>would have taken up Vista if I hadn't been building a new machine. On my
>last machine, I kept going with Windows 98 right up until updates and
>support were stopped before moving to XP. If I had been simply upgrading
>parts of that, for sure it would still be running XP. It was working and
>it didn't seem to me that I would be able to do more with XP than I could
>with 98, certainly nothing that was worth the extra license fee. I think
>that must be even more true with Vista and XP, on both counts. Given I was
>about to pay for another OS license for a brand new machine, I thought I
>may as well have the new one; I did consider buying another XP license with
>an upgrade coupon inside, but in the end got an almost give-away deal on
>Vista.
>
> I really find it odd that most people posting in this group appear to be
> people who are changing OS on existing machines with little or no change
> in hardware.
>
> Neil

"Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message
news:OVKtOl5rHHA.3628@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Because they can :-)
>

Seems to me like many of them can't, at least not reliably.

Because I figured they couldn't go backwards with the release
Seriously, I figured that with the offloading of window composition to the
graphics card and the time to clean up various bugs, it would be an
improvement. I was let down in a major way with both performance (WAY too
much disk thrashing) and just jaw-dropping UI holes (ASP.net fails to
install, VPN connections sometimes don't appear in the system tray - in
fact, there are tons of data refresh issues, and inconsistencies like some
UIs having OK buttons, some not, some use the Back button, some don't). Too
many cooks in the kitchen, IMO.
On the plus side, it's never crashed & I've never been asked to reboot, but
someone needs to clue management over there into the fact that CTPs aren't
the same as a rigorous QA cycle (yeah, I'm sure they'll say they've QA'ed
the hell out of it, but their threshold of "stop-ship" is lower than I'd
prefer)

> I really find it odd that most people posting in this group appear to be
> people who are changing OS on existing machines with little or no change
> in hardware.

So are you saying that if something works satisfactorily it can't be
improved upon?

I find XP perfectly OK, and still use it on my laptop, but I upgraded my
workstation to Vista for a number of reasons:

1/ Better engineered under the hood, giving the *potential* for greater
security, reliability and stability (only partly fulfilled at this early
stage)

2/ Curiosity - I like experiencing new things

3/ Improvements to the user interface (in my opinion Vista's UI - whilst not
perfect - is improved in most respects over XP)

My old house kept me warm and dry just fine, but I moved anyway because I
wanted more rooms. My old car took me around the place and never once broke
down, but I bought a newer one anyway because it's more comfortable and
quieter. And so on.......

I appreciate that some people prefer to keep things the same. But perhaps
this gives you a part-way answer to your question.

Steve

"Neil" wrote:
iven I was about to
> pay for another OS license for a brand new machine, I thought I may as well
> have the new one; I did consider buying another XP license with an upgrade
> coupon inside, but in the end got an almost give-away deal on Vista.
>
> I really find it odd that most people posting in this group appear to be
> people who are changing OS on existing machines with little or no change in
> hardware.
>
> Neil
>

I can understand where you're coming from in a way. But I think in terms of
security Vista is far superior to XP. And if I can quote another person, it's
nice to get rid of XP's"Fisher-Price color scheme".

I still have XP on my laptop for 3rd party applications. But now after
Vista, I can't help but feel bored by the simplistic graphics on XP when I'm
using it.

People say the User Interface on Vista is just eye candy. Well.... Aren't
cool-looking graphics part of what computing is all about? It's neat to see a
flash animation in the window when I'm copying a file. I love seeing my
Vista log on screen in the morning when I wake up.

Also it's just human nature for people to want to have the latest and best
version of a product (of course the assessment of 'best' is up for
argument).

But I'll go with the opposing side for a bit. My Dad, being 75, made a very
perceptive statement about the technology field. He said:
"The trick is NOT to be first" He meant that it's always good to wait
because the second release of a product or of software is always better. The
bugs are more worked out, or the product has been improved upon. Some of
this is more applicable to products (ie, MS will give us the SP1 of Vista),
but when you jump in first and buy a new tech product right away, you're left
with a slightly deficient version when the "new and improved one" comes out
on the market.

So you are smart to want to wait. Others like being on the front lines as it
were.

Frank B.

"Steve Thackery" <thack@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:uZJo2o$rHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I really find it odd that most people posting in this group appear to be
>> people who are changing OS on existing machines with little or no change
>> in hardware.
>
> So are you saying that if something works satisfactorily it can't be
> improved upon?
>
> ....
>
> My old house kept me warm and dry just fine, but I moved anyway because I
> wanted more rooms.

But you could pretty much guarantee that the house you chose to replace it
was at least going to have more rooms by having a good look at it
beforehand. You didn't get that with your Vista upgrade. More like a
situation where the vendor told you it had five bedrooms, you didn't get the
opportunity to view the house before buying and two of them turned out to be
under-stairs cupboards. There may well be things you find out about a house
after buying it, and they may be dreadful or they may be annoying, but the
chances are you will have seen most of it coming and understand beforehand
how much of a struggle it's going to put up before you have it the way you
want it.

I think I'm saying I'm surprised that people who have working systems which
did everything they wanted, but were speculatively upgrading because of the
advertised benefits, didn't wait first to see how much of them panned out in
reality.

Nothing will stop the people who have to have the latest everything, but
those aren't the people I'm talking about.

Neil